The ACLU strikes again

The ACLU protects NAMBLA, the organization promoting man-boy "love" but is constantly on the attack against the Boy Scouts of America because it requires a belief in God (even though the boys can believe that God is nature or something other than what He really is). And, sadly, they have successfully struck again.

"Ever since the Supreme Court upheld the Scouts' First Amendment right to bar Scoutmasters who are openly gay, the ACLU has looked for softer targets. The suit against the military is one of a series aimed at getting communities to deny access to public facilities."

The Enlightened Ones

Read Gary Will's article, "The Day the Enlightenment Went Out."

Excerpt:

"Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?"

And this one is all the more outrageous:

"The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they had experienced from this country in the past. In fact, we now resemble those nations less than we do our putative enemies.

Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists. Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed."

Isn't it odd how secularists consider themselves to be enlightened when, in fact, they are totally in the dark? They view Christianity as a throwback to the "dark ages." However, Jesus said of his followers, in Matthew 5:14, "You are the light of the world--like a city on a mountain, glowing in the night for all to see."

In John 14:6, Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life." Now, if Jesus wasn't who he said he was, then those of us who follow him will someday be proven to be misguided...but if we're correct in believing that he IS the son of God and he IS the truth and the only way to God, then how can NOT believing in him be labeled as "enlightened"? Since the majority of Americans indeed believe in Christ's divinity, even a large chunk of Kerry supporters (though they are more likely to be more indifferent about their faith...with the obvious exception being in the African American community who are very devout in their faith), it seems obnoxious to call yourself enlightened because you think the majority of Americans are morons who refuse to see the light.

"Chipping away" at abortion

I enjoy David Limbaugh's thoughts more than those of his more famous brother...but that's just my opinion.

Read his article on the provision in the spending bill that bars federal, state or local agencies from using financial coercion to pressure health care providers to perform abortion services or referrals.

A little excerpt:

"Just as homosexual activists characterize proponents of preserving the age-old institution of traditional marriage as enemies of their civil rights, these liberal pro-aborts are saying, in effect, that unless the government proactively encourages the practice of abortion, it is "gutting" or "chipping away" at abortion rights."

Abortion advocates want to force healthcare providers who receive government payments into performing abortions...even against their own moral consciences. Funny how they picked the "pro choice" label to make it sound like killing babies is a positive thing, but then they don't even live up to their own label by taking away the choices of healthcare providers to decide whether or not to perform abortions. Is there irony there, or is it just hypocritical?

County-by-county map

This is one of the best county-by-county maps I've seen.

There are those silly folk who want to abolish the electoral college...I say let's ramp it up a bit and give each county (or congressional district) electors of their own so the suburban and rural areas of states with big cities won't be held hostage by those inner-city liberals.

Links to Blog Search Tools

There are some nifty tools for searching blogs...kind of the Googles of the blog world. Thought I'd share some of them for those who enjoy blog surfing:

BlogSearchEngine
Bloogz
DayPop
Search4Blogs
Technorati

Christian "moderates"

PBS' Religion & Ethics program ran a piece entitled "Christian Moderates." It is an interesting segment on the religious divide between mainstream (religious left or moderate) and evangelical (religious right) in America.

Reverend BOB EDGAR (General Secretary, National Council of Churches): "This election has been around fear, around extreme fundamentalism, and around talk television and talk radio that has moved far to the right, and those of us who are in the middle, what I call "middle church," need to recognize that we can't give away the language or the argument or the ability to speak clearly on these issues."

To me, those in "middle church" might as well call themselves "lukewarm church" or "Laodiceans." And we know what Jesus said about the Laodiceans, right?

"I know all the things that you do, that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish you were one or the other! But since you are like lukewarm water, I will spit you out of my mouth!" (Rev. 3:15-16).

If you think secularism in America is bad...

The forces of secularism have been trying to impose its will on Americans for at least three decades now. I think the reelection of President Bush is a successfully placed "thumb in the dike" (uhhh...maybe a bad pun) to hold back incessant efforts to remove all presence of God in the public square. If you want to see where we may very well be going, check out what's going on in Europe.

Interesting excerpts:

"...Catholic and Christian religion had been pushed out of the public debate and was being "driven into the margins."

"Describing the development of a 'secular ideological aggression' across the continent as 'cause for concern,' the cardinal said: 'In Sweden, a Protestant minister who preached about homosexuality on the basis of an excerpt from the scriptures was put in jail for a month.
Secularism is no longer that element of neutrality, which opens up space for freedom for all. It is beginning to change into an ideology which, through politics, is being imposed.
It concedes no public space to the Catholic and Christian vision, which as a result runs the risk of turning into a purely private matter, so that deep down it is no longer the same."

"In politics, it seems to be almost indecent to speak about God, almost as it were an attack on the freedom of someone who doesn't believe."

"The sexual act has lost its meaning and purpose. . . to the point that all kinds of sexuality have become the equivalents of each other. The main consequence is the placing of homosexuality and heterosexuality on equal terms."

A call to action...

From the Community Connections team:

The Topeka City Council Tuesday night passed an amended version of the Homosexual Right Ordinance by a 5-4 vote. The good news is that they removed the parts of the ordinance that required churches, schools and businesses to hire homosexuals and landlords to rent to homosexuals.The bad news is that they extended special rights to homosexuals in all City of Topeka employment. They granted the same "terms, conditions or privileges of employment" which would include MARITAL BENEFITS to all homosexual city employees. (line 562 of the ordinance)

We are asking everyone to organize their congregations, friends, co-workers, etc., to call and email Topeka Mayor James McClinton and ask him to please VETO the homosexual rights ordinance passed by the city council last night. Office 368-3895, home 232-5038 and email jmcclinton@topeka.org If possible these calls need to be made in the next day or two (this week). If you could organize a phone or email tree that would be great.

As Topeka taxpayers, we have the right to decide how our taxes are spent, and we don't want tax dollars to give homosexual city employees marital benefits.

If we can convince Mayor McClinton to VETO this ordinance, it will never take effect. Praise God that 90% of the ordinance was gutted. It is clear that the calls and meetings to and with council members had an impact. Through the calls we picked up Lover Chancler, and caused some changes with Jeff Preisner and Duane Pomeroy. Keep in mind that Mr. Preisner was the one who appointed Tiffany Muller (the lesbian council member) to the council. Mr. Preisner's amendment did basically gut the ordinance leaving only the city employment and benefits issue. It also thankfully removed “gender identity and expression.” Although we can only claim a partial victory, clearly the opposition felt the strong brunt of defeat. They knew they had five, perhaps even six solid votes for the entire ordinance a week ago. Our calls cracked their coalition and forced the gutting of the ordinance.

Nice article on adoption in America

Another big media miss: Adoption coverage

Some excerpts:

"November is National Adoption Month, but you'd never know it from reading the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune or USA Today. Total number of stories noting National Adoption Month in those five newspapers during the first 15 days of November: zero, according to Lexis-Nexis."

"...the gay adoption lobby is on the march, claiming that two adoptive fathers or mothers are just as good as having both a father and a mother. But, even laying aside the serious ethical issues, it appears that gay adoption could result in fewer adoptions, since many birthmoms will be reluctant to place their children for adoption if they think placement will be with homosexuals."

"...the role of Christian and pro-life groups in adoption has received little coverage. Historically, American Christians have been highly involved in adoption, particularly of hard-to-place kids. I know, for example, Christian parents in Maryland who adopted seven children of different races with severe physical or mental difficulties, parents in California who adopted three Down syndrome babies and parents in North Carolina whose adopted children include one born so prematurely that he could fit in the palm of your hand.

The parents in each case were motivated by love of children but also by their pro-life positions, developed out of a biblical understanding. Organizations that helped these parents and thousand of others have a religious base: The largest adoption nonprofit in the country is still Bethany Christian Services, which has numerous state affiliates. But these groups have been so under-covered in the press that some people think adoption is carried on only by government agencies and for-profit businesses."

City council passes amended ordinance

Narrowed plan passes: Discrimination ban limited to city hiring practices

Well, they imposed their political correctness on themselves but fortunately not the rest of us. They're just simmering us frogs until they can turn up the heat and we won't know what got us. That said, this buys us some time to replace certain council members...and us True Believers will be very actively contributing our time and finances to defeat candidates who would classify homosexuals as a protected class and force churches and businesses to extend to them the same protections that African Americans rightfully deserve.

It is a shame, in my opinion, that a business would discriminate against someone if it is discovered that the employee is a homosexual. We're all sinners. If I fired every sinner, I'd have to fire myself. That said, we can't have civil protections for every class of sinners. Who's next? Adulterers? Thieves?

Like I've said before, I've hired homosexuals before and I would hire them again if they were the best candidate for the job. It wouldn't be, nor can it be, a question on a job application form. How can I discriminate against someone for their sexual preferences if I don't know they are gay? If they would keep their sexual preferences out of the workplace it wouldn't be an issue at all. I don't want anyone who works for me to make a display of their sexual preferences. Period.

Can the Dems get faithful?

From Hugh Hewitt's blog:

"...the New York Times runs "Some Democrats Believe the Party Should Get Religion." The article quotes Al From as he correctly frames the dilemma for Democrats: "You can't have everybody who goes to church vote Republican; you just can't." What From knows is that the key demographic that is causing heartburn for Dem strategists are Americans who attend church nearly every week. Forget what people label themselves. Categorize them by what they do. And in 2004, if they went to church (or synagogue) nearly every week, they voted overwhelmingly GOP. (George Barna has a different way of slicing it, but I prefer to chart folks by actions, not self-descriptions.)

The problem for Democrats are that the people who attend church every week overwhelmingly believe that abortion is wrong and that marriage is an institution reserved for one man and one woman. (I don't have data on this --it is just my hunch. I'd love to have confirming or counter-data sent to me.)

Which means all the declarations about the Dems' need to broaden their appeal are meaningless unless and until the Dems speak convincingly on the subject of abortion or marriage. The party cannot for reasons related to the influence of its pro-choice, pro-gay marriage elites, so there is no chance of closing the "religion gap." An honest article would have reported this, instead of suggesting that Hillary could close the religion gap by declaiming against partial birth abortion. Rudy Guiliani might be able to satisfy Iowa primary voters with some statements like that, but Hillary couldn't persuade regular church attenders with such posturing."

Gay Rights Ordinance

Our beloved city council is considering a nauseous, politically correct gay rights ordinance that is completely unnecessary. I wrote to the city council:

"As a small business owner, I must issue my objection to the proposed ordinance extending special rights to those who define themselves by an alternate sexual orientation. In my past business management experience, I am quite sure I have hired homosexuals and didn’t require an ordinance to do so. There wasn’t a check box on the employment application form asking for their sexual orientation and I didn’t ask. I hire the best person for the job and I do not want to be forced into weighing a decision in favor of a homosexual so I don’t have to worry about being slapped with a discrimination lawsuit. I don’t want anyone in my company to be defined by their sexuality, whether homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual.

What if my business has an office, and within that office I have a heterosexual employee who starts making inappropriate sexual comments to other employees. It would be fine to fire that person. What if a homosexual person did the same thing? Or what if they decide to start dressing flamboyantly, in a manner I deem inappropriate for the office, and want to fire or reprimand the employee? A city ordinance on special rights for homosexuals gives them an avenue for taking legal action against me, warranted or not. Even if I were able to win in court, the provision enables them to take that action and cost me dearly in downtime and legal fees.

And it’s completely unnecessary. I haven’t seen a single case of discrimination against homosexuals in Topeka. None. And I don’t believe you have either. I have followed these attempts to add this type of ordinance and not a single case of discrimination has been raised. This is an attempt to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Most major employers in Topeka have their own policies against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Further, to extend special rights based on sexual orientation is to classify sexual preferences in the same category as race and ethnicity—factors in which the individuals have no choice. There is no proof that sexual orientation is innate. If it is true that homosexuals are born that way, then why do I know former homosexuals? The only former black person I know of is Michael Jackson.

I also object to this ordinance because churches and individuals who are opposed to homosexuality because of religious reasons will be forced to hire or extend housing to homosexuals. There is no other way to read the proposed ordinance than to conclude that they will face sanction if they discriminate against non-heterosexuals.

I urge you to either table this issue or vote against it. Or why not put it to a vote of the people during the next regularly scheduled election since it is obvious there isn’t a pressing need to implement such an ordinance (again, no evidence of discrimination has been produced)? The only reason you would approve this highly controversial measure without giving us a vote at the polls is because you know the citizens would overwhelmingly vote against it. Having this type of ordinance forced upon an unwilling populace is not a way to engender a positive community environment!

I will be a part of a very active group of citizens who will finance the campaigns of council members who oppose such special rights ordinances, and work as part of a grassroots campaign against those who do.

As we saw in elections throughout the country, Americans do not want this politically correct nonsense crammed down our throats. What a horrible time to make this attempt."

"Total Truth" Book Review

"Total Truth" by Nancy Pearcy may just be a must-read for evangelicals who have kept their faith to themselves and haven't been willing to think and present arguments as intellectuals to shape public policy. Read the book review here.

Christians aligned with gov't or God?

A great Cal Thomas commentary that, in short, says, "Throughout history, the church has demonstrated the least power when it aligns itself with temporal government. It has exercised the most power (that is the power to change lives) when it aligns itself with its Leader and a kingdom 'not of this world.'"

Read it here.

Here is a nice segment that should slap many of us Christians in the face and wake us up a bit:

How morally compelling is an institution collectively known as the church when it preaches "traditional" marriage but practices something else in too many cases?

The pollster George Barna has surveyed the behavior and beliefs of Christians for many years and found them often inconsistent with the very Bible they claim to believe is infallible.

In a survey published Sept. 8, 2004, Barna discovered that born-again Christians are divorcing at the same rate as those who are not born again. Among married born-again Christians, writes Barna, 35 percent have experienced a divorce, the identical percentage for those who are not born again.

Worse, though Jesus regarded divorce as a sin (unless adultery was involved), a majority of the born-again group (52 percent) disagree that divorce without adultery is a sin. Among Catholic respondents, 69 percent disagree that divorce without adultery is a sin.

Evangelicals Pushed the Prez Over the Top!

A nice article from Larry Kudlow on the role evangelicals played in reelecting President Bush can be read here.

Excerpts:

"Though the established media outlets almost never talk about it, Bush’s core support group has all along been the born-again Christians. They make up roughly 40 percent of the American population. They are middle-class folk who go to church, read the Bible, and practice traditional virtues and values — make that religious values — in their daily lives. They are married and tend to stay married. They are shopkeepers and small-business people. Many are stay-at-home self-employed. Others are salespeople who travel their regions as insurance brokers or financial planners or corporate product representatives. They drive SUVs. They shop at Wal-Mart and JCPenney. They are middle class.

Yes, and they believe in God — as does their candidate George W. Bush. They also believe in traditional marriage between a man and a woman. And as befits the traditional nuclear family, they love their children and believe strongly in a child’s right to life."

"...in the end the evidence points to the Evangelicals as Bush’s primary engine of victory."

And in conclusion:

"If the Bush-led conservative majority keeps its promises on a strong defense, on spreading peace-inducing freedom and democracy around the world, on limited government and lower tax rates to promote economic growth at home, on the pro-consumer, pro-investor, ownership-society, reformist conservative agenda for Social Security, healthcare, and education, and on the social values of protecting the unborn and preserving traditional marriage, then the 2004 election outcome will represent a huge step in the right direction for this great country."

UPDATE: Sleepless in Topeka

I stayed up way too late last night and never got the satisfaction of seeing the President go over 270 electoral votes...why won't they call New Mexico and Iowa???

This morning I am thankful that the American people did not select a leader who:

*votes repeatedly to continue the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion;
*raises taxes with reckless abandon;
*debates himself endlessly and seems unable to take a firm stand on anything (other than partial birth abortion);
*was supported by Michael Moore, George Soros, Hollywood actors, Dan Rather and the rest of the mainstream media, the Communist Party USA, and on and on.

I just hope Kerry doesn't go nuts in trying to find ways to steal Ohio the way Gore tried to steal Florida.

When I hear a gracious concession speech, then we can all get on with our lives!

Sleepless in Topeka

Am I going to keep watching Tom Brokaw all night now that the crew at Fox News has turned in? I'm blurry eyed and I have no promise of satisfaction, but I guess I can't help myself. Bush is so close!

I believe we are going to see the anti-Christian left become unhinged in the next few weeks (as if they already haven't been). The only thing that could upset them so much about Bush is his faith. It drives them crazy as liberal elitists think a TRUE belief in God and devotion to Christ as lunacy.

When Bush finally is able to claim victory, think of all the losers left in his wake. Kerry, yes, but also Michael Moore and George Soros and Terry McAuliffe and Dan Rather.

Our prayer should be for healing in our land, and that the President will be able to govern without fear of the hate-driven enemies he has in our own country.

God bless America!

Voted!

I just cast my vote. There was no line, so at least at my polling place I'm not sure that the much-discussed boom in voting is going to pan out.

Our church held a prayer rally for the election last night. You can see a news story on it here. They interviewed me and John Zobel, leader of our Community Connections team.

Voteprayvote.com

Check out www.prayvotepray.com. This website gives a three-step plan on what you should do this election: 1. Pray about who to vote for. 2. Vote for who God leads you to vote for. 3. Pray for our next elected leaders.

Ethical issues (from an email I received today)

Over 60 Christian leaders affirm statement on the Bible and ethical issues
in the election

The Bible speaks to several ethical issues in this election

Many Americans seek guidance from the Bible for important issues of life, while we recognize that many others do not. With thankfulness for the freedom of all Americans to believe whatever they think best regarding matters of religion and ethics, we offer this statement of our personal understanding of the teachings of the Bible for the thoughtful consideration of all who are interested in how the Bible might speak to ethical issues in the current election.

1. Supreme Court justices: People don’t often think of the appointment of Supreme Court Justices as an ethical issue, but it clearly is now because several decisions of the Supreme Court have imposed on our nation new policies on major ethical and religious questions.

A small majority of our current Supreme Court, and lower courts that follow their example, have gone beyond their Constitutionally-defined task of interpreting laws passed by Congress and state legislatures, and have in effect created new “laws” that have never been passed by any elected body. By this process they have imposed on us decrees that allow abortionists to murder unborn babies (contrary to Exodus 20:13 and Romans 13:9, “you shall not murder”), that protect pornographers who poison the minds of children and adults (contrary to Exodus
20:17, “You shall not covet ... your neighbor’s wife; see also Matt. 5:28), that redefine marriage to include homosexual couples (thus giving governmental encouragement to actions that Romans 1:26-28 says are morally wrong), and that banish prayer, God’s name and God’s laws from public places (thus prohibiting free exercise of religion, and violating Romans 13:3 which says that government should be “not a terror to good conduct, but to bad”). In taking to
itself the right to decree such policies, the Supreme Court has seriously distorted the system of “checks and balances” intended by the Constitution between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government.

It is unlikely that any elected body such as a city council, state legislature, or the U.S. Congress, would have decreed policies like those mentioned above, for such groups are accountable to the will of the people. Not so the Supreme Court, which is appointed for life. And democratically-elected members of Congress and state legislatures are helpless to change those Court-mandated policies unless the makeup of the Supreme Court is changed. We believe the ethical choice is for a President and for U. S. Senators committed to appointing judges who will follow the original intent of the Constitution and just interpret law and not make it, rather than for candidates who have often voted to block such judges in votes in the Senate.

2. Defense against terrorists: A fundamental responsibility of government is to “punish those who do evil” (1 Pet. 2:14) and thus to protect its citizens. We now face a unique challenge, because terrorists who will sacrifice their own lives in killing others cannot be deterred by the usual threat of punishing a criminal after he commits a crime. While Jesus instructed individuals not to seek personal revenge but to turn the other cheek (Matt. 5:39), the Bible teaches that
governments are responsible to “bear the sword” (Rom. 13:4) and thus to use force to oppose violent evil. We believe the ethical choice is for a candidate who will pursue terrorists and, when necessary, use force to stop them before they strike us, not for a candidate who only promises to respond if we are attacked again.

3. Abortion: The Bible views the unborn child as a human person who should be protected, since David said to God, “You knitted me together in my mother's womb” (Psalm 139:13; see also Psalm 51:5; 139:13; Luke 1:44), and strong penalties were imposed for endangering or harming the life of an unborn child (Exod. 21:22-23). We believe the ethical choice is for candidates who believe government should give protection to the lives of unborn children, not ones who
believe government should allow people to choose to murder their unborn children if they wish.

4. Homosexual marriage: The Bible views marriage as between one man and one woman, for “a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24; Eph. 5:31). Because our courts have shown a troubling tendency to overturn the laws that have already been passed concerning marriage, we believe the ethical choice is for candidates who support a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man
and one woman.

5. Embryonic stem cell research: Creating more human embryos for their stem cells is making the beginnings of little babies for the purpose of harvesting their parts, contrary to the command, “You shall not murder” (Exod. 20:13). There is a good alternative: using adult stem cells for medical research, because this does not destroy the life of the adult whose cells are used. We believe the ethical choice is for a candidate who has decided he will not allow government funds to be spent to create more human embryos just to take their stem cells.

6. Natural resources: God put human beings on the earth to “subdue it” and to “have dominion” over the animals (Gen. 1:28). We value the beauty of the natural world which God created, and we believe that we are called to be responsible stewards who protect God’s creation while we use it wisely and also seek to safeguard its usefulness for future generations. The Bible does not view “untouched nature” as the ideal state of the earth, but expects human beings to
develop and use the earth’s resources wisely for mankind’s needs (Gen. 1:28; 2:15; 9:3; 1 Tim. 4:4). In fact, we believe that public policy based on the idealism of “untouched nature” hinders wise development of the earth’s resources and thus contributes to famine, starvation, disease, and death among the poor. We believe the ethical choice is for candidates who will allow resources to be developed and used wisely, not for candidates indebted to environmental
theories that oppose nearly all economic development in our nation and around the world.

7. Should Christians speak out and try to influence our nation on these issues? God’s people in the Bible often spoke about ethical issues to government rulers. Daniel told the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar to practice “righteousness” and to show “mercy to the oppressed” (Dan. 4:27); several Old Testament prophets speak to foreign nations about their sins (Isaiah 13-23;
Ezekiel 25-32, Amos 1-2, Obadiah (to Edom), Jonah (to Nineveh), Nahum (to Nineveh), Habakkuk 2, Zephaniah 2); and Paul spoke to the Roman governor Felix “about righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment” (Acts 24:25).

As Christian leaders we agree that the primary message of the New Testament is the good news about salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. But the primary message is not the whole message, and another significant part of the New Testament teaches us how people should live. With respect to issues like these we have mentioned, the Bible also teaches us about what kinds of laws governments should have.

The laws of a nation have a significant influence on the nation’s moral climate, for good or for ill. This is because laws can either restrain evil or encourage it, and because laws also have a teaching function as they inform people about what a government thinks to be right and wrong conduct.

Therefore we urge pastors and Bible study leaders to teach on these crucial ethical issues facing our nation. We urge all Christians that they have a moral obligation to learn about the candidates’ positions, to be informed, and to vote. We urge all Christians to pray that truthful speech and right conduct on both sides would prevail in this election. We also encourage Christians to consider doing even more for the good of our nation, such as giving time or money, or talking to friends and neighbors, or even serving in office themselves. Such influence for good on the direction of our country is one important way of fulfilling Jesus’ command, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:19).